While most of his peers stay out of the spotlight, super-agent Scott Boras has as usual been less than shy about sharing his opinion during the coronavirus pandemic. Boras spoke again today with SI.com’s Stephanie Apstein, espousing a firm position for players in their negotiations with Major League Baseball.
To be sure, Boras largely echoed union chief Tony Clark in terms of takeaway. Both are holding the line that they won’t accept a salary cut pegged to 2020 revenues, as the owners are set to propose. And they each maintain that a late-March MLB-MLBPA agreement determined that players should receive pro rata pay for any games played, regardless whether fans are in attendance.
So, why highlight his latest comments?
As I recently explained in covering the still-developing dispute between league and labor regarding that late-March deal, the issue boils down to some strange ambiguity that appears in the contract. While a “player compensation” section provides for straightforward salary reduction based upon the number of games played, the sides also agreed in another clause to “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”
In short, there’s a legal question of contract interpretation that bears heavily upon the strategic/practical question of how hard each side wants to push its position in negotiations and public posturing. Boras’s comments — always worthy of attention given his unmatched stable of clients — speak to both of those questions.
Here’s how the polarizing player rep stated things (emphasis mine):
“The players I represent are unified in that they reached an agreement and they sacrificed anywhere from 30 to 40% of their salaries so that the games could amicably continue. The owners represented during that negotiation that they could operate without fans in the ballpark. Based on that, we reached an agreement and there will not be a renegotiation of that agreement.”
Let’s discuss the matter of contract interpretation first. It remains a mystery as to why the MLB-MLBPA agreement did not speak clearly upon the question of how to handle a season without fans (or expressly reserve that matter in its entirety). Given the ambiguity, an arbitration panel or court considering that question might look not only to the agreement itself, but (among other things) to the statements made by the parties during negotiations — particularly to the extent they were reasonably relied upon by the other bargaining side.
Details remain elusive here, but this appears to be the first public allegation that the league side did or said something during the negotiations of that agreement that should impact how it’s interpreted. Boras says that the owners “represented” something about operating sans spectators, seemingly implying that the union side has something to buttress its stance on salary beyond the bare terms of the agreement itself. It’s impossible to assess given what we know and don’t know publicly, but it’s theoretically possible that a statement made during negotiations could substantially impact the outcome of a legal battle — if we ever see one.
If the union really feels it has a compelling legal case, then it could be emboldened to hold the line. Even if the late-March deal doesn’t establish an absolute right to pro rata salaries, evidence of the sort Boras suggests (assuming the player side can produce it) might well support a more favorable reading of the agreement. For example, it’s conceivable a court might read the notion of a “good faith” discussion of “economic feasibility” as requiring the league to turn over certain financial information to the players — particularly given that the league proposal is to tie salary to revenue — and perhaps also to make some sort of showing of infeasibility to open talks on lowered salaries.
Will the players actually hold the line on this point and demand that they receive full pro rata salary for whatever games are staged, whether or not fans are in the seats? Boras speaks to that as well. When he suggests unity among his clients, that means that he purports to speak for many of the game’s most-visible and best-compensated players. And he indicates that they’ll speak with one voice in declining to (as he presents it) renegotiate the agreement on the matter of compensation.
Even before you get to the question of which side you think is morally justified, if any, there’s still much we don’t know about what the parties of interest are really aiming to accomplish with the present jockeying. Is the league putting the squeeze on the union to get some added concessions? Perhaps Boras is being tasked with pit bull duties while Clark holds the line and the players put a more sympathetic face on the labor position. Could it really be that the sides are squaring up for a brutal and very public battle, all against a backdrop of a pandemic and long-building grievances? It’s not yet clear. But Boras’s comments do tell us that, at minimum, the player side (or at least his segment of it) wants MLB to believe that it will stand on an aggressive position on the matter of salary, come what may.
probably going to make the same ammount anyway so he doesnt care.
Boras could be looking at a significant hit since his clients are some of the highest aid in baseball.
Yeah. He’s not making the same amount.
If he were making the same amount he wouldn’t be saying half the stuff he has.
He most definitely will not earn the same amount of money if his players do not earn the entirety of their contracts. The players have more to lose here as he only loses 5-6 cents per $1 the players lose. Regardless there’s really no reason to vilify Boras in this situation.
He’s got enough scratch and a business that’ll keep raking it in. He can take a one year dip without an issue. The player’s only have a limited amount of time to make their money.
If the players don’t like the agreement proposed with maybe a few additions then they can just take 2020 off and no-one gets paid !! Stick that in your craw Bora$$ !!
I think fans are resigned to no baseball anyway so see ya in 2021–MAYBE
Of course he does because he can’t have his huge bank account take a hit. This guy is a leech, nothing more.
Lol how is he a leech?
Because he is good at his job and maximizes value for the guys he represents. The beauty of capitalism take your liberalism socialist views back to Russia
Russia’s not communist anymore.
It appears as you don’t know what Capitalism, Liberalism or Socialism is nor do you appear to understand Russia.
Last time any of us checked, he wasn’t the voice of baseball or the entire player contingent….and that ain’t capitalism or liberalism WAH!
Haha russia isn’t communist? Then I guess the United States is a national socialist country lol. You are aware putin is a former KGB agent?
And a Red Sox fan shows the intelligence of that sounder.
Yes former, Russia is a semi-presidential constitutional republic.
Technically the idea of revenue sharing would be a socialist idea. Demanding to keep to a contract decided at a particular market point would be capitalist. Boras is your normal capitalist looking to gain the most.
Read a little and study something other than CNN sound bites about Putin’s background.. He WAS KGB, high level also. Even John McCain called him out when he and obama were campaigning against each other regarding his KGB past. mcCain said he saw “KGB” in his eyes after obama said he saw a man he could deal with.
Putin is and was a commie thru and thru.
It was Bush who waxed poetic about Putin being “trustworthy,” not Obama, but nice story.
Putin is indeed an authoritarian menace, but please get your US presidents straight. Thanks!
Like the owners!
Well, this particular comment thread is truly something to behold.
I’m not going to wade into this too far, but …
Boras’s market negotiation ideals and tactics strike me as very much not “communism.”
Oh and for what it’s worth, it would probably be a mistake to jumble up the institutions of the late-stage Soviet state with any particular political philosophy.
Stupid reply about Liberalism & Russia.
Everyone that has been only working the last few decades does not really understand Liberalism since this county has not had a 100% liberal economic policy passed into law since the 1960s. Ever since it has been bipartisan or conservative backed policies (trickle down economics).
I’m not going to wade into this too far, but …
—————————————
Good idea, but you are right on both counts.
1-Boras is simply an agent. He’s done a couple of ‘allegedly’ underhanded things, like dealing with Angelos & Illitch for huge contracts, when both owners might’ve been cognitively impaired.
That said, he doesn’t force owners to sign contracts. GMs have a budget, and it is up to them to decide what they want to buy. Boras makes a case for his clients, much like we all do on our own behalf. If Boras is better at making a case for JBJ, for example, than I am making a case on my own behalf, then so be it.
Past that, why does anyone care? My last beer at Yankee Stadium cost $13. That $13 goes into a huge pool to be divvied up between owners and players, with a couple of pennies given to the commoners who sold me that beer. What difference does it make to me whose pocket my $13 falls into?
Because he literally doesn’t do anything important and gets a ton of money. Agents are the most unnecessary part of sports.
Not to the players.
I’d like to point out before there were agents and free agency for baseball players that owners had the reserve clause. Basically they decided what players were worth and not all owners were fair.
Owners have their own teams of lawyers and negotiators trying to squeeze every buck so of course players will as well. The business side of the game has always been a part of the game.
Then why do players voluntarily surrender 3%+ of their salaries to hire an agent?
If the mlb said we will pay you double your salary to play during covid Boras would be the first to say suit up boys!
Dude only cares about one thing. His interests.
Doubt he has the players interests in mind. If the money’s right he will advise his clients to do whatever.
That is one of the most ignorant comments I have seen, hosebeelion. Of course Boras cares about the players! He is always looking to their next contract, that is the job description of an agent.
then cancel the season
Boras makes people nuts, but he’s also making some valid points. We can’t expect the players to take most of the risk.
I think I’m fine with the season being cancelled. I have Trout, Rendon, Ohtani and a young starting staff locked up. One less year of watching Albert roll over outside pitches for double plays. It gives us a better shot at retaining Simba or LaStella up the middle. The Dodgers lose Betts, Houston loses Springer while Verlander and Grienke get a year older, Oakland loses their shortstop. Let’s skip 2020
Are you the Angels GM?
No he’s John Dietz
Dodgers will resign Betts they have no money on the books. But keep that pipe dream alive that some day trout will win a playoff series.
If the players gave just a little,they could hammer them at the end of the CBA.
Look at the NBA. There will never be a labor stoppage again.
They are all more partnered than any other sport,although the new NFL deal is a win for both sides as well.
Cancel season and don’t play. Pandemic and destruction of the economy be damned, let’s just take Scott Boras’ comments and everyone and everything else be damned. Players further ushering the sport down the ladder of fan interest by this type of awful PR move. MLBPA once again failing miserably at both regular PR and now Crisis PR too.
Scott Boras is one of the world’s great self serving phonies, but here, he’s right.
The owners are trying to orchestrate this so that they have to take the smallest hit of anyone. The fans are going to take a hit because you can bet when things go back to normal next year or the following, prices for tickets and merchandise are going to skyrocket way beyond the rate of inflation.
The media’s taking a hit because the owners can more or less hold them hostage.
The owners will be able to dictate absolute terms to lower level employees and concession stand holders and the like by threatening not to have a season at all.
And now the owners are going to try to make the players the bad guys by spinning the situation to look like all the millionaire players have to do is sacrifice a little money to get the games going. But if they agree to play they’re also sacrificing their health, and worse yet, their family’s health. Doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to ask them to take a massive pay cut under those circumstances.
At the end of the day, what’s going to happen is this: The owners will plead cash poverty. They’ll make the argument that if everyone doesn’t agree to take a significant, in some cases crippling hit, the whole industry will collapse. But the upshot will be that when this is all over the players will have risked their health, the blue collar employees will have had to live on the edge of poverty and the owners will not have taken any appreciable hit at all. Their standard and quality of life will not suffer in the least, and rather than being tested for a deadly disease ever day they’re going to be hermetically sealed inside their mansions.
Tell me how this is reasonable.
I want baseball back, but if I’m the union I’m telling the owners where to go stuff themselves.
You forget one important thing here…..Baseball isn’t a democracy…..its all about individual kings and their kingdoms…….they get paid very handsomely to play a game they started playing as kids…they have very little idea of reality and that reality is that they don’t call the shots.
I don’t believe the comment above advocated for anything other than players standing on their bargaining positions and fighting to get what they can in this situation.
Your response confuses me.
You say baseball is a smattering of kingdoms, not a democracy. So why can’t players utilize the weapons they have just as owners do? Why are you mad at players for using what leverage they have to influence “the shots,” even if they lack a right to “call” them outright?
And why is it you find it compelling to note that players are “paid very handsomely to play a game they started playing as kids,” which evidently means they shouldn’t be able to use their bargaining power for more, but you do not subject owners to the same assessment — i.e., that they stage a game they started watching and playing as kids, and therefore shouldn’t be able to maximize profits from said game at every opportunity.
If it’s a dog-eat-dog world, why shouldn’t the players be able to fight for their share?
Rocky
“ they get paid very handsomely to play a game they started playing as kids”
Not sure what you do for work, but I’d imagine you did some form of it as a kid. Math, science, play house, theatre, maybe you helped your parents make dinner at night and now you’re a chef. Discrediting professionals, elite ones at that, by pointing out that they did it as kids is a dumb argument. If you were proficient at something, to the degree these guys are at baseball, you wouldn’t be rolling over to appease billionaire owners. You’d want your slice just like everyone else, or maybe you would roll over. I’m not sure.
“they have very little idea of reality and that reality is that they don’t call the shots.”
Let me guess, YOU have a better grip on reality, because your life is more realistic than everyone else’s. The billionaire owners have a more “realistic” view of reality, and the players live in a fantasy world where everything is granted to them without rudimentary understanding of basic business principles, including but not limited to, labor agreements.
I’m not sure what reality you live in, but what’s happening here is an attempt to manipulate the optics by the owners, and to manipulate a labor agreement that is a legally binding contract. When owners were buying franchises that appreciated five fold in a decade, and made cash hand over fist the owners wanted no part of a 50/50 revenue split. Now that they stand to take a hit, they want to pass the risk and loss to players. What reality are you living in to not see that?
Wow what bulls_it!
I live in the reality that is today and it is my opinion which the last time I checked is okay in the USA…..but I guess in your reality it is otherwise!
Grow up!
Rocky
“ they have very little idea of reality”
Then
“ I live in the reality that is today and it is my opinion which the last time I checked is okay in the USA”
On one hand you argue that the individual has a sovereignty over their own reality, and the other argues that other realities are inaccurate because you disagree, then you say this is America so everything is fine.
I don’t know which reality I’m discussing with you.
rocky doesn’t either.
….they get paid very handsomely to play a game they started playing as kids…
———————————————–
I’m not sure what that means, and if it has any relevance whatsoever. Most people are employed doing something they started very young, or at least something related to it. I’m an accountant because I was very good at math.
Past that, both sides are entitled to whatever they can get. The owners, and the players, and the concessionaires, don’t have a proprietary right to my beer budget. Let them divvy it up as they collectively see fit.
That strikes me as particularly capitalistic.
Agree on all points and add that some teams like Tampa Bay make very little in ticket sales. They fund their entire payroll on Cable TV and revenue sharing.
If MLB.tv were to offer monthly, weekly or even single game packages during this, Tampa Bay could potentially make more money than normal.
Large teams like the Yankees will be affected by no ticket sales but they own their own cable tv channel and will make more there. I’m pretty sure the Steinbrenner’s purchased the team for around 7 million. They have made a bit of a capital gain since. If they have 1 season where they don’t also make millions in yearly profit as well is that the end of the world?
Of course Bora$$ doesn’t want the players to take a cut. That means a cut in his fee as well. But the owners will take a significant cut in revenue if there are no fans. For many owners, cancelling the season will mean less of a loss than playing if the players don’t take a cut.
Counterpoint: the owners agreed to the contracts and bear the risk, just as they enjoy the bounty of profits in good years that they do not share (at least directly/by right) with the players.
I agree with Jeff’s last two points. In years when owners are raking and have sell out crowds at every game (Giants early-mid last decade) the owners didn’t give bonuses to the players. In the last few years with tix sales down, the players didn’t have cuts to their contracted salaries. In general, baseball owners and owner groups have done very well for many years in the game and the value of their clubs have appreciated immensely. One bad year of incoming revenue shouldn’t affect the players salaries. It’s the inherent risk/benefit of being the owner. You do well in the good times and you struggle in the bad. But if your doors are open, you gotta pay your employees. Period!
the owners agreed to the contracts and bear the risk
——————————————————–
Is that strictly true? If war broke out, and we couldn’t play baseball for the next ten years, does Trout still get paid $400M? I assume there are clauses in the CBA that say that the players don’t get paid if there is no longer any baseball.
There is, and it allows the commissioner to suspend play during an “act of God” or a state of national emergency. The CBA also states that an attempt must be made to play 162 games, so if games are played the CBA covers the games played.
In the current situation, play would resume without fans, and both sides are arguing if the pay scale for games without fans had already been agreed upon.
The argument is just a gesture that he’s on the cliets’ side. Deep down, he understands.
I believe that if the players hold the line on no more concessions there will be no 2020 season.
It’s probably the small market teams that don’t care about there fans like the pirates rays marlins that want revenue sharing
I think the writer is missing the point. The mere fact that there is mention of playing games without fans written into the contract, suggests that both sides have considered the possibility of that occurring. That’s it. That’s all there is. They talked about it. They included it in the contract. They both acknowledged it. They had the opportunity to fine tune the details. Neither side did. The owners had their chance to have their say…… I think that’s Boris‘ point, no?
I don’t believe I missed that point. I wrote about it here: mlbtraderumors.com/2020/04/union-league-spar-over-…
Honestly, I’m not quite sure what you are suggesting, but I also remain mystified by the agreement treatment of this point.
Boras’s position is: the agreement simply provides for pro rata salary, no matter whether fans are in the seat.
MLB’s position is: no, the agreement mentions a no-fan scenario only to say it’s subject to future negotiations.
Really, neither side’s interpretation is crystal clear from the agreement, which is a hot mess.
I’d add that by this point I think the MLBPA posturing has made one thing clear to the Owners:
There will be no more ‘potential issues’ – such as the not-as-of-yet problem of no-fan games – identified with an obligation for ‘good faith negotiation’ as necessary in any agreement to resume play. If the contingency isn’t spelled out in black and white, no resumption of play.
I also think that the Owners put that ‘good faith’ requirement in there just to get the first deal done so players could begin receiving the initial payments to tide them over.
I also think Owners knew the issue could come up, knew it would take time and be tricky, but also didn’t see a point in holding everything else up and getting into such a contentious problem unless it was necessary. Build and conserve what goodwill you can.
Looks on its surface like that went unappreciated by labor.
I remain completely confused by how this agreement came into being with these particular terms. Terms of a deal like this aren’t like a press release where you can hint or nudge. They should be very clear. If they didn’t agree on something, that should be clear.
I keep coming around to feeling like … either they have such little trust that they were both trying to pull one over on the other side, or one side mistakenly allowed in unfavorable language that muddied the deal.
I guess this speaks to what I’m trying to say….
they had their chance to disagree and decided on nothing. Mlb teams have multiple revenue streams, broadcasting , merchandising, advertising….. the “good faith” is that they will show up, perform, put themselves at risk, take a massive cut in annual salary and MAYBE, just MAYBE, be open to the idea of even further reductions if play restrictions were to continue for multiple seasons…… that kind of thing. Anyhow I think you are a great writer. I just think in your attempt to be fair and unbiased in your reportage, you unnecessarily muddied the waters. This is crystal clear to me. Anytime something is left up to good faith, somebody gets ripped off. MLB execs seem to mess a lot of things up, and this seems like another thing. But then again, ambiguity is the scammers best friend.
Appreciate it. I want to understand your point.
Are you arguing something like this?
The fact the agreement contemplates a season without fans indicates it was foreseeable and foreseen. The owners negotiated on the point at the time and knew the economic points. If they wanted to negotiate for lower salaries with no fans, they bore the burden of ensuring the contract had a clear process for that.
Yeah. It would have taken about as long as it took for you to write that, for them to have included it.
Yes. Thank you. That’s a good way to say it. It would have taken about as long as it took for you to write that, for them to have included it in the contract, at which point MLBPA would have said, ahhhhh nooooooo.
Why does this feel like the MLBPA executive botched the details by a) not defining them precisely and b) recognizing the possibilities of how they might be interpreted as a result?
It seems they could have learned more from issues that arose out of the last CBA. Instead they made essentially the same mistakes
What’s confusing to me is … they have expensive lawyers. They know how to negotiate clear terms, even if they arguably have failed at times to foresee the way those terms will impact things in the long run.
I get what you are saying, but I feel like this is a different sort of issue. If the union is really and truly surprised that the league is offering its interpretation … I feel like they should’ve recognized the problems this clause posed from the outset.
This is why Boras’s comments are so interesting, though. What did the league “represent,” exactly? Was the union justified in relying upon it? Certainly possible it would’ve been.
The problem here is that we’re hearing at the very least 2nd and 3rd hand information, and, it isn’t exactly coming from a neutral source – it’s coming from one of the most slanted and spin happy sources in mlb who I’d imagine wasn’t present at the negotiations, and, the head of the players union.
I think it is very likely that you could have had a very simple exchange like the following, and, it fits all the data points we hear:
Either side (doesn’t matter): well, what do we do if this thing drags on and we’re forced to look at playing games in isolation, off site, or somewhere fans can’t attend?
MLB: well, we think we could probably make it work somehow. (Unspoken they contemplate alternate broadcast revenue, or additional salary reduction, or only missing a limited set of games with fan revenue)
MLBPA: we’re really not prepared at this point to make further concessions, we feel we’ve given up a good deal as it is. We also aren’t prepared to make a blanket pledge based on unknowns because there’s a big difference between teams missing a month’s worth of fan-revenue and a whole season. Obviously you can see how we dont feel we can evaluate how much of a concession, if any, would even be reasonable at this point.
MLB: ok, well, how about this. Let’s include a provision that says that should resuming play require play without fans present we agree to negotiate further in good faith on that point? There is no need to hold up this relief for the players over something that may not even become an issue.
There we go. You get the vague provision inserted, and, you can have a vague statement from teams that they thought they could make something work.
But, again, if MLBPA had expectations of what the teams should have to do in an attempt to make business work before this mentioned good faith negotiation could occur, they should have written in those preconditions.
And if MLBPA didn’t want teams to expect the right to these good faith negotiations re: further compromise on payroll, then they should have stricken that provision entirely.
What did the league “represent,” exactly? Was the union justified in relying upon it? Certainly possible it would’ve been.
————————————————————–
There is pretty much no such thing as what one ‘represents’. If this was the case, we wouldn’t need paper on which to write the terms of the contract. And everyone understands that.
No one buys a house, for example, where the owner ‘represents’ he will take care of the roof if something goes wrong. It is in the contract, or it is not.
Jeff,
Has anyone covered the fact that even if gates were open to the public, there’s no guarantee that attendance would be profitable? It’s one thing to say that fan attendance typically produces 40-50% of revenue, but it’s another to concede that attendance, even if allowed, would be down to historic lows.
This would likely be the case, and owners with a 50/50 split would be passing on that loss to players as well. So to me, this isn’t about fans attending games, it’s about fans attending games to the extent that it’s profitable to open the gates, pay people to work the concession stands, security, maintenance, etc, and who is expected to shoulder that risk of loss.
The agreement for 2020 is very clear that players get full pro rata salary for games played in front of fans.
But I also think that ship has sailed for 2020.
None of these negotiations bear directly on 2021 … when we could still be looking at restrictions. I think your points are definitely in the back of everyone’s mind but aren’t yet teed up.
I rarely agree with Boras but the players should not have to take a cut based on revenue. If they play then they are showing up to work and should be paid based on their contract pro rated for amount of games. You don’t pay a cashier based on how many customers come in.
But regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about whether it’s fair or not, shame on both sides for not making the agreement clear. That “good faith” clause would seem to say that further discussions would have to take place without fans and both sides signed it apparently. Otherwise, why was that even put into the contract? Owners win IMO.
But if not enough customers are coming in you send employees home early, cut shifts from the schedule, or just close the store – maybe early, maybe for a while.
Other than the fact they supposedly have the money to do so (in your opinion) why SHOULD the owners subsidize a money hemmoraging half season?
Will you cash out your retirement and investment funds to send a check to those of us short on money during the pandemic and running out of savings? You could afford it…
AtlSox
Because the CBA stipulates that a 162 game season must be attempted to be played, and played under the conditions of individual contracts to players. It doesn’t say the commissioner has the right to alter pay, or suspend pay or service time. It says a 162 game season must be played to the best of the ability of the league.
The agreement done in March conceded, from the players, the right to sue for full salaries in exchange for service time and pay advance thru May. These contracts don’t work as hourly wages, they’re guaranteed and predicated on the agreement that 162 games will be attempted to be played under the conditions of the CBA (which way nothing of reducing salaries or splitting revenue).
Some days as a businessman, you don’t make as much as other days….. today is that day. If any of them are hungry there are plenty of nice church groups that will make them some soup and sandwiches, while they weather the storm….
Bad analogy, imo. Your analogy works if the situation is that, some days you sell 100 widgets, some days you sell 110, and some days you sell 90.
This is more like your widget suppliers have run out of widget material, and won’t have any more widgets for 6 months, and your widget salespeople still expect 100% of their commissions.
Why do they give this butt wipe a forum?
He’s represented some of the biggest baseball players over multiple decades and has negotiated deals that total billions of dollars.
You can hate him, but he’s the elite of the elite and probably the best sports agent in the world right now.
My intention is not to give him a forum, per se. I see news value in these particular comments, as explained in the post.
It can be a fine line, since it’s easy to just say “well Boras is the most powerful agent, so anything he says on labor relations is newsworthy.” But I do think in this particular case, the importance is evident and that it’s not just hoisting up his opinion for everyone to gawk at.
Sounds to me that, based on that language regarding playing without spectators, the owners have a point. That sounds to me like that would be a separate matter entirely and it should be. Without fans, players should take less. The first agreement was just so that players playing less games get paid less, which seems fair. Now they should take a further cut if no fans in stands because that’s a further loss of revenue for the owners.
This is true to a point, and MLB could prevail in a hypothetical legal battle, but … If that was the intention of both sides, don’t you think it would’ve been spelled out much more clearly? I’m certain the league would’ve insisted upon it if it was a point they had expressly agreed to include in full in the agreement..
MLB never would’ve left the player compensation section to stand alone in this manner without mentioning fan-free games. It never would’ve agreed to phrasing like “discussion” and “good faith.” in the key clause.
If the clear mutual intent of the parties was to say “we haven’t decided anything about no-spectator baseball,” I think MLB would demand language that stated as much expressly.
That they didn’t — and that the interpretation soon erupted into a point of contention — suggests to me that the sides were exchanging drafts in which they were each angling for self interest, rather than communicating forthrightly about how to document clear points of agreement.
I just think that owners having to face the possibility extending broadcast rights by a year, or facing the legal ramifications of not delivering on the licensing agreements, was enough to force them to get something presentable up and running. I would like to know how league wide salaries compare to league wide broadcast/advertising revenues….. is it even close?
I am suggesting that Mlb considered all options and decided that a 2020 season of minimal returns was less of a loss than not delivering on contracts, and delaying agreements by a year. Not to mention, goodwill and the potential of fan disengagement.
Players should make a deal where they accept revenue sharing for this season but then revenue sharing continues in future seasons as well. Players would take a hit in 2020, but they’d benefit greatly once revenue gets back to normal levels
There goes the season…
I think there are benefits that go beyond the bottom line financially for both sides to make this work. I hope they can. A month ago I talked to a small market team owner who indicated there was a zero percent chance that MLB would play without fans. As such, I’m not surprised the neutral sites or regional plans did not advance. Personally, I am OVER the fear and would attend a ballgame tomorrow if I could with no social distancing. Let the scared people who are afraid to die shelter at home while we get better seats. It’s time. Everything needs to reopen now. Fauci and all of the other experts completely botched the response. It’s time to get past this. New flash: People die. All the time, from a variety of causes.
Wow.
“Let the scared people who are afraid to die shelter at home while we get better seats.”
Stubhub meets Darwinism.
Interesting experiment.
Pro-life versus pro-choice…. the corona virus edition.
Boras is the Switzerland of agents. He gets nothing but a cut of the 170 mil if they don’t play. He gets a cut if the players decide on a deal on an abbreviated schedule and he gets everything he wants if the owners buckle and give more then they should.
Either way Boras is a winner. I’m sure he’s got pandemic insurance too. lol
Let them eat cake…..
Prorated sounds about right. Plus I would calculate what the attendance revenues was in 2019 and what the percentage of attendance was to total revenues. Lets call it 20%. If that number drops to 10% for the games played, then a 10% cut in salary over and above the prorated salary seems in order.
However, i would say even if attendance per game was only 1/3, I would imagine revenues could still be about 2/3 of attendance revenues per game by increasing prices since you know, reduced supply and increased demand .
I guess it really comes down to if MLB has pandemic insurance and if they are getting any bail out money.
I agree with Boras and would hold off any negotiations.
Not sure if any players have insurance that covers a lost season. Maybe Boras clients are smart enough. If MLB cancels the season the players are free to barnstorm. They can rent out some non MLB stadiums and stream the games pay per-view and share it among themselves.
Lot of fans would sign up for it
Lots of companies are forgoing short term profits (or even losing money) in order to pay their employees during this crisis. Why? in order to maintain their already established teams of skilled and trained employees so they can hit the ground running when things open up and ensure their long term viability.
If Starbucks can do it, why can’t MLB? Or, perhaps a better question, why won’t MLB?
Actually, that’s not an accurate comparison. Starbucks (and other companies) are paying their employees their full pay…to not work. Players are being asked to to take a pay cut…to work.
When a business is closed (for whatever reason) customers find ways to live their lives without that business or it’s products. Short of fire or meteors or whatever, nothing hurts a business more than losing it’s regular customers. Because of this, it can be argued that the players have never been more valuable to the game or the owners than in this upcoming season. A lost season might doom an already declining sport.
And no one’s asking the owners to take a second mortgage on their beach houses, between TV money, merchandise, video games, etc. the players are paid for before a single turnstile moves.
I bash Boras as much as anyone and Clark more than anyone, but I’m not seeing how the players could be branded as the greedy ones in this situation.
Dang that’s a good post
It appears to me that if the Players Association sticks to the March agreement there won’t be a 2020 season.
They need to understand the need to concede income to compensate for no fans in the stands.
Come on, Players Association, start compromising!
It is simple: Owners and Players made an agreement that both sides should live up to. Players should not have to sacrifice one penny more. After the season is when the owners can decide not to sign free agents to make up for their losses.
That’s not the agreement. The agreement calls for additional discussions if the games are played without fans.
No additional discussion is needed. Players get everything owed to them now. That is fair. Owners after the season do not spend lots of money on free agents. That is also fair.
Well both sides didn’t address the no fan aspect clearly at all in the first negotiation. Which was completely idiotic, as no fans was likely when they negotiated it. Considering the massive amount of money that a loss of tickets will cause the owners and paying the players the same per game, I’m guessing the owners would rather not play at all if the players don’t take an additional cut. I’m not saying either is right, but it’s definitely not clear from the first negotiation like you are claiming.
Can we just stop comparing baseball players to healthcare workers as if that makes it ok for owners to try to screw them over?
Of course it’s not the same level of risk. But to suggest that playing is zero risk is also false…so players are potentially risking their health and their families, and owners won’t make as much with people not attending, so how is this not a wash?
Why don’t the owners just go to their buddies in positions of power and get declared as essential businesses and I’m sure people will show up?
I am someone who thinks Boras is correct, and the players should not be forced to compromise. but let’s be honest, everyone who is not going to live in a bunker is at risk ( not just health care workers and athletes).,Personally speaking I am at work ( I am not someone wealthy who can afford not to work). One thing I do not want to hear is Boras “Bitch, moan and complain” when James Paxton does not get $25m a year for 6 or 7 years. He needs to understand the owners are going to take a big hit ( play or not). As a Yankee fan, I am starting with the $75m a year mortgage payment on Yankee Stadium.
Why shouldn’t the players have to compromise? If the revenue gets cut in half, shouldn’t the players’ revenue get cut in half.
IMHO, the players have been egregiously represented by their union. They should’ve taken revenue-sharing back when they were winning. In their last contract, it took less than two minutes for me to recognize that the deal was awful for the players, and in retrospect, it was even worse than I suspected.
The union effectively offered the owners a soft cap without getting a soft floor. Now is exactly the right time for the players to take a revenue-sharing plan. Call it a one-time deal for say 55%. Then, after the current CBA expires, start the new negotiations with ‘we already get 55%’, and negotitate down from there.
I like Tony Clark the player, but I wouldn’t let this guy try to balance my checkbook, let alone negotiate my salary.
“ I like Tony Clark the player, but I wouldn’t let this guy try to balance my checkbook, let alone negotiate my salary.”
But you just advocated for players to take a revenue sharing split when revenues will be at their lowest rates in decades.
So, players should want you to advocate for them?
If they don’t take a cut, there is a good chance we have no baseball.
What I would advocate for, and have advocated for, is that they players take a revenue-sharing plan. They should’ve done so years ago, but were greedy. Their shdown every year.are of gross revenue has gone
This is literally the worst time to take a revenue sharing split though. I’m not sure I understand why anyone would advocate players do this now.
There’s no evidence that owners will be operating at a greater loss if games are played without fans and players paid full pro rata than if there’s no season at all.
One thing in common. Money. They’re trying to come up with some scam season for money. Bring on a regular season football schedule.
It’s always about the Benjamins, even for you.
“It remains a mystery as to why the MLB-MLBPA agreement did not speak clearly upon the question of how to handle a season without fans”
Ohhh it’s not a mistery. This is what happens when your lead negotiator is a former baseball player with very little negotiating success. MLB new all along.
Why is it that none of the players see this? From Wiki-
“It was reported in April 2013 that Clark was close to earning a degree in history”
And this is management’s guy:
“Halem graduated from Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1988 and from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 1991.”
Sorry, Clark seems like a nice guy and all, but MLB is hiring the best and brightest..
Remember when there was months and months of talk, debate and waiting for an arbitration ruling on whether Cubs would keep rights to Bryant for 2 seasons, rather than 1? COVID-19 made that ruling & situation meet in the middle (now 1 and 1/2 seasons). So thanks Ricketts and Theo for abusing the letter of the law on service time manipulation and costing everyone a half a season of baseball, LOL
thanks Ricketts and Theo for abusing the letter of the law on service time manipulation
———————————————————————–
As much as I like Theo, I don’t think he invented service time manipulation.
I agree, but they carried out the most blatant abuse of service time manipulation. COVID-19 kind of made things right with that situation!
It was unavoidable. I’m not blaming either side, since I am not sure you can have a hard line in the sand. But, if the rules say you can have another year of service, for missing 10 games, then what choice did Theo have?
FWIW, TO made about the same blatant abuse with Vlad. They just got lucky and Vlad got hurt, allowing them to escape without criticism.
I’ve seen others try to make the KB & Vlad Jr. comparison but it’s not even close IMO. Vlad Jr. had a very poor spring training and was injured. KB lead not only the Cubs in homers that spring training but ALL of MLB!!! Not to mention other stats showing that his bat was more than ready for MLB. KB was far more athletic & in shape heading into his first year while Vlad Jr. looks like Cecil Fielder in the making. KB won ROY, was an all-star his first year and finished 11th overall in MVP voting. He also had like a 5.5 WAR to Vlad Jr’s 1.5
KB without a doubt has dealt with the most BLATANT service time manipulation in recent MLB history. I rest my case!
I really can’t stand Scott Boras!!
It was obvious when they negotiated the First Covid agreement that fans were highly unlikely to attend games for most of the season that was played. Why in the World would that not have been addressed in their previous negotiation with a more clear resolution? It’s just dumb. Considering fans attending games is a massive chunk of teams money, it’s only fair players take some sort of pay cut from that too. I know owners are rich blah blah. But my point still stands..
I can’t imagine a more bias representative then Boras and other agents. The pay of players directly effects them, and they don’t need to put themselves at any risk. Of
Course Boras is going to say that players shouldn’t take a pay cut for the Massive loss of ticket revenue. The owners would prefer not to have a season at all then pay players the same even though there’s no fan attendance revenue. This won’t end well
If players don’t take an additional cut.
Where would we be now if Fauci didn’t work on Aides? The one who don’t care are young with no parents, or parents with big life insurances.
Safe to assume baseball will be the last major sport to return.
It is wrong to assume that only # of games played should determine player wages. Fans not being in the stands is a big loss for the owners. How can the players, Clark & Boras not understand this. 2 big time jerks!
The Rays have been playing with no fans for a good amount of time so it is possible.